I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-hansen-scram-sha256
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 04-Aug-2015
IETF LC End Date: 25-Aug-2015
IESG Telechat date: not yet on any telechat
Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
The change to PS addresses the concern I expressed in the review below.
miniscule-nit: I still think the extra URI section after the references
is not needed.
RjS
On 4/2/15 1:41 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> .
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-hansen-scram-sha256
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 2Apr2015
> IETF LC End Date: 24Apr2015
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>
> Summary: Ready for publication as Informational, with nits that should
> be considered.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Nit:
> It raises flags for me when an Informational document uses "Updates"
> on a standards track document.
> I would argue that this does _not_ update 5802. IANA did the things
> that 5802 requested, and this document
> is requesting something else that happens to change those things. That
> makes this more of a "see also" than
> a "the protocol changed", and I think the Updates should be removed.
>
> I don't feel super strongly about the difference in _this particular
> case_, hence its classification as a Nit.
> But for consistency, and avoiding the issue of having an Informational
> update a PS, I hope you choose to remove it.
>
> Editorial comment:
> The URLs in the references section seem superfluous since you've
> already expanded them in the introduction?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art